The newly launched Middlebury website now features what the college has labeled as the “Four Fluencies”: “Solving the Climate Crisis,” “Analyzing Data,” “Transforming Conflict” and “Understanding Cultural Difference. If you are surprised to hear that these are the four pillars of a Middlebury education, so were we when perusing the Middlebury website.
After an hour of debating the usefulness of these categories, and what we would consider replacing the more objectionable ones with, we’ve come to the conclusion that these vaguely corporatized categories do not reflect the reality of a Middlebury education. Rather, such labels of the four fluencies represent wishful thinking of the PR team, not the reality of the Middlebury experience.
Let’s discuss the odd one out: data analysis sticks out amongst its globally ambitious peers that are awkwardly grouped together. How do excel spreadsheets and regression models compare to the high-minded values of the Conflict Transformation Collaborative or the importance of intercultural connections? The four fluencies are flawed because they omit key details, which strikes us as proof that this label was meant to inspire donors, rather than reflect the four years students spend immersed in the liberal arts education here.
Amidst this spectacle on the college homepage, behind the scenes is a more valuable debate happening regarding the academic future of the college. The Faculty Council and Student Government Association are debating critical resolutions about the number of credits required to graduate and updating the distributional requirements, but taking the four fluencies at their word silences the necessary discourse around our education. We call for Middlebury to do away with the superfluous language and tackle the debate head-on: How can we retain the core of a Middlebury education while preparing students to enter a modern world that makes new demands of us?
Faculty have expressed concerns with the four fluencies, and the disconnect between the fluencies and the distribution requirements currently in place. At a recent Faculty Council meeting, professors discussed the need for updates to the distribution requirements, which were implemented over 30 years ago. If the fluencies are to be retained as institutional goals – which many faculty expressed concerns about – some faculty proposed adjusting distribution requirements to be thematic, exploring topics such as AI, climate change and social justice, across academic departments.
Faculty are the backbone of the academic experience at Middlebury, and they were not even consulted before the fluencies were added to the college website last year. To us, this shows how the college saw the four fluencies as a way to market their fancy program titles more so than a reflection of the true learning experience at Middlebury.
One key example of the disconnect is in looking at what is missing from the four fluencies. For instance, there is no mention of developing students’ writing skills (okay, sure, maybe we are a little bit biased over here). But there are two college writing credits in the distribution requirements, and an overwhelming emphasis on improving writing skills within academic departments. Yet, the only traditional academic subject promoted is data analysis — something many humanities majors are likely never to encounter in a meaningful way, as they are even able to skip the deductive reasoning requirement if they choose. Could this be part of the war on humanities? Does the college advocate for data because it gives them more money?
For all this talk about fluency, there is no mention of fluency in foreign languages, despite it being the college’s claim to fame. The glossy new college website proudly touts the so-called “Big M” – the Vermont campus, Middlebury Institute of International Studies, Middlebury Language Schools, Middlebury C.V. Starr Schools Abroad and the Bread Loaf School of English – but foreign languages are included nowhere in the college’s learning goals. This disconnect makes it feel as though Middlebury cares about its language programs and study abroad programs insofar as it makes money off of them, but not to actually develop its students’ skills in those areas.
Four fluencies will probably always leave some things out, but maybe that is the problem with this premise. How can a liberal arts school with claims of a robust, well-rounded education be boiled down into four pillars?
If the college wants to promote its academic standing, let’s be honest about the reality of our learning here. No one is coming to Middlebury with the express goal of studying conflict transformation, and we are unlikely bang our Gamaliel Painter canes and walk out of commencement with the tools to solve climate change once and for all.
Instead of the pomp and circumstance, we should refocus our efforts on the structures that define our Middlebury education — the language focus, adding new distribution requirements and rethinking the number of credits needed to graduate. We only have four years here — can you imagine if we had to devote all that time to the four fluencies?
